Back to all research

Inter-individual neural differences in movement imagery abilities

DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.02.007
Seiler, B. D., Newman-Norlund, R. D., & Monsma, E. V. (2017). Inter-individual neural differences in movement imagery abilities. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.02.007

Abstract

Building on mounting evidence distinguishing the neurological basis of different movement imagery abilities (visual versus kinesthetic), this study compared brain activity (i.e., blood flow changes) through functional magnetic resonance imaging elicited by movement imagery in participants self-reporting good and poor imagery abilities with the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3. Participants also completed the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2. Method: Thirty-seven females (good imagery ability = 18; poor imagery ability = 19) were randomly presented with four experimental conditions (i.e., Kinesthetic, Internal Perspective, External Perspective and Rest) counterbalanced for condition, during three separate 11-min functional brain scans. Results: Kinesthetic and visual (internal/external) subscale mean differences of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2 favored good imagers and high Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 inter-scale correlations evidenced convergent validity. As in prior published work, kinesthetic, internal, and external visual imagery elicited distinct patterns of brain activation relative to rest. Overall, the patterns of brain activity in the good and poor imager groups were remarkably similar, indicating that they both generally relied on a similar brain network during movement imagery. Conclusions: Contrary to processing efficiency hypotheses (i.e., neural efficiency hypothesis) we report that during kinesthetic imagery and external visual imagery only, good imagers actually activated a greater number of spatially distinct cortical sites than did poor imagers. Furthermore, research is needed to fully characterize the neural signature of movement imagery in good and poor imagers. Such research is critical to the appropriate creation and proper application of neuroscience-inspired movement imagery-based learning interventions in healthy and clinical populations.

Authors

  • Brian D. Seiler1
  • Roger D. Newman-Norlund1
  • Eva V. Monsma1

Understanding Movement Imagery and Brain Activity

Overview/Introduction

Movement imagery, or the mental simulation of physical movements, is a fascinating area of study that explores how our brains visualize and feel movements without actually performing them. This study delves into how individuals with different abilities in imagining movements show distinct patterns of brain activity. Using advanced brain imaging techniques, researchers aimed to uncover the neurological differences between those who are good at imagining movements and those who are not.

Methodology

  • Participants: The study involved 37 healthy, right-handed women aged 18-30, divided into two groups based on their self-reported imagery abilities: 18 with good abilities and 19 with poor abilities.
  • Imagery Tasks: Participants engaged in four types of mental tasks: kinesthetic imagery (feeling the movement), internal visual imagery (seeing the movement from a first-person perspective), external visual imagery (seeing the movement from a third-person perspective), and a rest condition.
  • Brain Imaging: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) was used to measure brain activity during these tasks, focusing on blood flow changes as an indicator of neural activation.

Key Findings

  • Both good and poor imagers activated similar brain networks during movement imagery, indicating a shared underlying neural framework.
  • Good Imagers: Contrary to the neural efficiency hypothesis, good imagers showed more extensive brain activation, particularly during kinesthetic and external visual imagery tasks. This suggests they engage more brain areas to achieve vivid imagery.
  • Poor Imagers: While they also activated key brain areas, the extent and intensity were less pronounced compared to good imagers.

Implications

  • Educational and Therapeutic Applications: Understanding how different people visualize movements can help tailor learning and rehabilitation programs. For instance, athletes and patients recovering from injuries could benefit from personalized imagery training to enhance performance and recovery.
  • Neuroscience Research: The findings challenge the idea that more efficient neural processing (less brain activation) is always better. Instead, more extensive brain engagement might be beneficial for certain cognitive tasks.

Limitations

  • Participant Demographics: The study focused solely on female participants, which may limit the applicability of the findings to males.
  • Task Simplicity: The movement task used was relatively simple, which might not fully capture the differences in imagery abilities. Future research could explore more complex tasks and include participants with no prior imagery experience to better differentiate between good and poor imagers.
In summary, this study sheds light on the complex neural processes underlying movement imagery, highlighting the potential for tailored interventions in sports and rehab...